Monday, July 6, 2009

Progress in . . . . Illinois?

Rumors abound . . . the budget mess is the top story everywhere, of course, but there are rumblings that the anti-gun side is looking at the McDonald v. Chicago gun case and realizing that they need to start making hard decisions. On which hills are they willing to die? What happens to the last state in the nation with no concealed carry and no open carry when the Supreme Court of the United States rules that the 2nd Amendment is incorporated via the 14th Amendment . . . and protects a personal right to keep and bear arms from state and local governments? Change happens, that's what, and they're beginning to talk about how much of that change is simply inevitable.

Reliable people are reporting that very preliminary discussions between the NRA and deeply anti-gun politicians have begun. The message is that our side is willing to negotiate today, but not necessarily forever. The message is apparently being heard.

*If you're wondering, no, I don't know who is involved on the other side. I have a report of one anti-gun politician who is not involved in this discussion, but that's all. I don't have anyone's permission to put that person's name out, and I doubt it would surprise anyone. You can probably think of half a dozen Illinois politicians who would never negotiate with gun owners. The identity of the politician who is at least talking to our side would be a lot more interesting, and maybe surprising, but I don't have a clue who that is.
at

3 comments:

  1. Illinois voteJuly 6, 2009 at 5:15 PM

    I'd look at this Gift horse very carefully. An anti gun politician willing to talk in the illinois area only makes me think they want advice and guidance on what they will try to ban ,block ,or restrict within new court interpretations. It seems the Chicago attitude was "let them sue us and we will nickel and dime them all the way to the supreme court."

    I'd be suspicious that they will still try that attitude and are just trying to prepare new legislation that will attempt to limit rights and continue the legal battle.

    When's the last time you have seen a Northern Illinois politician that didn't love to piss away taxpayers money?

    ReplyDelete
  2. DonJuly 6, 2009 at 10:54 PM

    Is it just me, or does Jessica actually sound exactly like an advertisement?

    Anyway, yes, there are sure to be pitfalls. In fact, I'll go one step further and predict that if a bill comes out of these talks, many will scream bloody murder because there was any negotiation at all. But it wasn't very long ago that the anti-gun forces in this state flatly refused to negotiate anything and castigated us for not "compromising" by giving them 100% of what they wanted. Now they're desperate.

    ReplyDelete
  3. SmershagentJuly 7, 2009 at 1:19 PM

    You'll have to forgive me for being suspicious as well. The anti-gun owner bloc in Illinois has had over 40 years to negotiate with us, and all they've done in that time is try to ream us harder and harder every year all while attempting to goad us into calling this metaphorical evisceration of our rights a "compromise" rather than a gradual subjugation.

    Now that they're on the ropes and we have them by the gonads, suddenly they want to negotiate? If it were up to me, I'd tell them that ship sailed a long time ago.

    As a matter of curiosity, though, I'd be most interested in what manner of negotiations are allegedly taking place and with whom. I know there are a few individual pillars of political power in the state, but I'm unaware of anyone who can simply "undo" any of the myriad and onerous restrictions facing lawful gun owners in the state - assuming such an individual was even inclined to do so.

    ReplyDelete